[woodsyi]

I know that there are people who pick up many languages without troubles.  It's not just the similar languages but these folks can genuinely acquire vastly different languages later in adult life.  So, it's not surprising that there will be people who are open to appreciating (acquiring) new music of vastly different forms later in life.  Within this theory, this lucky minority would either have been exposed to many different musics at earlier age or that their meta circuit (responsible for music appreciation) in their neural network never closed like it does for majority of people.  Again borrowing from the linguistic model, these meta circuits are responsible for acquisition and recognition of language.  Older foreign students who emigrate to this country have issues with accents.  We know that most Japanese can't distinguish L from R.  Most Americans can't distinguish hard consonants from their softer ones in Korean -- there is no difference heard between TT and T nor between KK and K.    And we can all recognize it when we reach Indian call center for customer services.  There are individuals who defy these trends but the studies have found statistic significance to justify this theory.   

The reason for me to bring this up is to find a rationale for the observed phenomenon here on AC and elsewhere.   I am learning that folks who just can't like new music are not intentionally being obtuse.   They are being honest to their impressions.  For majority of the population, totally new stuff is weird and off-putting at first hearing.  I have that too but I will persevere with some initially unlikable music to get to like that music.  I learned to love gospel and soul singing this way.  Knowing why I may dislike something at first hearing allows me to overcome that prejudice and gain more music to appreciate in the end.  That's worth putting in the effort to overcome something unpleasant at first. 

There are some I just can't overcome though.  I must be fundamentally wired to dislike Diana Krall's voice.  I try but she is not getting better.  I have not given up yet but she is a hard nut to crack.  May be I should watch her as well.  She is certainly pleasant to look at.

[jsaliga]

Peter Brotzmann and DNA?  You're trippin me out, dude . . brother J'rome.

All I can say Jim to anyone lamenting that music isn't what it used to be is...of course it isn't.  Change is at the very heart of musical development.  My parents were married in the 1940s at the height of the big band swing craze.  I'm sure that when the big dance bands disappeared and bebop came along they were stunned that big orchestras playing danceable, tuneful arrangements gave way to smaller groups playing fast music that was meant for listening, not dancing.  Things got even tougher for them when rock and roll came along.  For my generation, those who grew up with The Beatles, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, The Rolling Stones, etc...punk and the new wave displaced that music.  I remember the first time I heard The Ramones on the radio and thought to myself..."This isn't music.  I don't know what this racket is but it sure as hell isn't music."  I didn't like The Ramones, The Clash, The Sex Pistols, and most punk bands back then, but I enjoy them now (London Calling is one of my favorite rock albums of all time).

Music is gigantic, immense, galactic.  It's analogous to the size of the Milky Way.  You could listen to something different each and every day for the rest of your life, and if you lived to be 100 you still would not have come close to hearing all there is to hear.  If melodic, hook laden rock is your bag then I can promise you there's a ton of stuff out there that would suit your fancy that you have not heard yet.  If you dig the atonal saxophone sqonks and squeals of Peter Brötzmann there are many others who are on the periphery of music just waiting for you to hear them.

In summary, if you can't find music that is new to you and that you enjoy...then you just aren't trying or have lost your passion for music.

--Jerome

[BobM]

Having grown up in the 70's, with all the different classic rock and progressive music that was around, and having played several different instruments as a kid in both the current and traditional pop and classical vein, I think I was exposed to much. That fundamental exposure to different genre's and styles of music has always influenced my ability to accept and appreciate music differently than others who had a narower focus.

Now, I don't like everything, but I certainly do like more than I dislike. I can "get" avante garde styles, to a degree, but most anything I listen to has to have something to catch the ear, whether it be rythm or melody or a compositional purity. As a result, I don't get most rap at all.

Hell, I'm turning my teenagers onto new music all the time, not the other way around.

Enjoy,
Bob

[sts9fan]

Great post Jerome!  I totally agree with you. This day of information overload you need to put in some work to find the gold. It's not going to be force fed you like all the 70s rock. A little effort and the thrill of the hunt goes a long way. As long as you are looking for somthing to sound like Pink Floyd or Yes then you are gonna lose. 

[Quiet Earth]

I must either be an exception or the thesis is wrong.  My musical interests have evolved and expanded over the years. 

Me too. And my tolerance for music without direction has actually grown. I even like some of it.

Don't need a Ph.D to realize if I can sing along with it.

[woodsyi]

Me too. And my tolerance for music without direction has actually grown. I even like some of it.

Don't need a Ph.D to realize if I can sing along with it.

You guys are brilliant exceptions!    I would guess that audiophile sites like AC would have more than a fair share of the music appreciation savants.

[Delta Wave]

 The reason you remember the melodies from older music is because it's old and you've heard it over and over and over and over and over and over, you remember it. You would get the same effect from music now if you actually listened to popular radio, they play the same ten songs over and over and over and over. BUT... MOST of the music played on mainstream radio IS corporate made cookie-cutter crapola. Modern "Country" is some of the most unmelodious music I've ever heard... mediocre rock musicians that can't make it in Rock & Roll. 
 Try a few Phish studio albums ("Farmhouse" is an extremely melodious album), the guitar player pulls some of the most amazing melodious leads from out of nowhere. Or how about some Frank Black & The Catholics; I recommend "Dog in the Sand" and "Show Me Your Tears", very melodious AND they record entirely live on two track. You don't see rock bands doing that any longer do you?
 

[woodsyi]

Now, I don't like everything, but I certainly do like more than I dislike. I can "get" avante garde styles, to a degree, but most anything I listen to has to have something to catch the ear, whether it be rythm or melody or a compositional purity. As a result, I don't get most rap at all.

Bob

There be rhythm in RAP (Rhythm and Poetry), Bro. 

[TheChairGuy]

Awesome post this is turning into...very thought provoking

I have a lot less time as an adult then I once did as a teen and in my early-20's to discover new music...so I'm stuck in something of a 20-30 year old 'groove' as a 47 yo now

But, along the way from the pop-oriented youth I've picked an appreciation, and love, for many forms of jazz and classical I would diss some 20+ years ago.  What Keith Jarrett is doing on that piano doesn't classify as melody - but, it's brilliant.  Ditto for Vladimir Horowitz and Vince Guaraldi...in vastly different ways.

Except for the occasional melodic Elton John tune of yesteryear...I could care less about piano music.  My best bud growing up was/is a Julliard-trained pianist...didn't matter; I wasn't ready to receive the appreciation for great piano music until I was ready.

My piles of albums get thicker mostly from other jazz artists, classical and a lot more genre's than I appreciated 20+ years ago.   

Personally, when exposed to some new music...I like it.  Perhaps Jack Johnson and Ben Harper are throwbacks to an era I was brought up to understand...but I think Gorillaz and 50 Cent has some great stuff, too

I 'get' some of the fascination with today's music...I just cannot get over today's glorification and fascination with skin and body defacing tattoo's (ie, body art), tho.  Ewey

John

[jimdgoulding]

There be rhythm in RAP (Rhythm and Poetry), Bro. 

Yeah, but it always seems to me to be about doo-doo.  It don't soothe the savage breast, do it?  Justifyin and testifyin.  I put it right up there with country & western music.  I know you're just fooling, Rim, and I'm just bitching.  We can imagine, we can feel things listening to music.  Boundaries can disappear.  It nourishes something out of the ordinary.  Real soul food.  Think instrumental music is best for that.  Don't think Diane Krall is any kind of measuring stick. 

[Quiet Earth]

The reason you remember the melodies from older music is because it's old and you've heard it over and over and over

True, but what made you dig it the first time you heard it? Usually the hook or melody involved.

[Quiet Earth]

 What Keith Jarrett is doing on that piano doesn't classify as melody - but, it's brilliant.  Ditto for Vladimir Horowitz and Vince Guaraldi...in vastly different ways.

Keith is very lyrical, he usually dances around a particular song in all of his stuff . . . . . and don't forget all of the standards that he's done.

Vince Guaraldi is a giant in melody standards,,,,, Cast Your Fate to the Wind, Moon River, etc., etc. It don't get more melodic than that guy, Charlie Brown. 

[jimdgoulding]

Quiet, you funny.

Yeah, I know, it's Diana Krall.

[Larkston Zinaspic]

In popular culture, the musician calls on the highest part in all of us. In mass culture, the musician addresses the lower parts of what we are. In popular culture, our musicians sing to us in our own voice. In mass culture they shout what we want to hear.  ~Robert Fripp

[lonewolfny42]

True, but what made you dig it the first time you heard it? Usually the hook or melody involved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a7cHPy04s8

[geezer]

Long ago, I discovered what characteristics in music makes it interesting to me. A memorable melody always helps, but in addition I like the music to have texture. Some examples of I mean are: wide dynamic range, wide tonal range and tempo changes. It helps if, in a group, different instruments (including voice) at different times are in the forefront, supported by the rest, but not drowned out by them, and it's better if there are instruments with contrasting tonal character (like violin vs. bassoon, or oboe vs. french horn). And, of course, it is important that the composition has an interesting structure, whether melodic or not. ("Interesting structure" is like pornography, I can't quite define it, but I know it when I hear it.)

Although there must be some popular music that I could enjoy, I find it hard to find, so almost all most listening is classical, including some fairly modern stuff.

If anyone can suggest popular music having the characteristics I've described, I'd appreciate it, especially if I can get it from the library.

[mjosef]

Melody is like the word Love...means different things to different folks.
One can feel melody in a complete performance without melodic intervals...at last year Vision Festival Peter Brotzmann drew the curtain down on the annual event accompanied by a drummer and bassist...they went from 0-60 in 0 seconds and just stayed up there...the intensity of the nonstop 45minute performance was something else, a new experience for me. Afterwards your whole body was vibrating to whatever frequency they had triggered with their sounds.
So yeah, I would call that a melodious performance. 
Others may not.
There is melody everywhere.

http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=33539&pg=2

[jimdgoulding]

There is melody everywhere.  Couldn't have said it any better.

[Delta Wave]

True, but what made you dig it the first time you heard it? Usually the hook or melody involved.

I never said it was a bad thing, just a psychological and/or subliminal effect of exposure. And there's probably a lot of newer stuff you've heard and liked but have just forgotten about because you've only heard it once or twice.

[Miney]

The reason you remember the melodies from older music is because it's old and you've heard it over and over and over and over and over and over, you remember it.

Agreed... if you can do the below then perhaps you need to diversify...